By The ASCE Task Committee On Design Criteria For Composite Structures in Steel and Concrete ABSTRACT: This Commentary Complements The "Proposed Specification For Struc

COMMENTARY ON PROPOSED SPECIFICATION FOR
STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAMS WITH W E B OPENINGS

(WITH DESIGN EXAMPLE)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Madrid on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
By the ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures

in Steel and Concrete
ABSTRACT: This commentary complements the "Proposed Specification for Struc-

tural Steel Beams with Web Openings." The specification follows load and resis-
tance factor design (LRFD) philosophy, and may be adopted as a chapter in a
larger specification. Basic design procedures involve determination of maximum
nominal flexural capacity, maximum nominal shear capacity, and interaction of
flexure and shear. The maximum nominal flexural capacity is calculated using
standard strength procedures for both composite and noncomposite sections, taking
into account the loss of material within the web. The maximum nominal shear
capacity is based on a simplified four-hinge mechanism, with one hinge at each
corner of the opening. The general design approach is identical for composite and
noncomposite members, with or without opening reinforcement. The design pro-
cedures apply only to compact sections. Additional criteria are applied to ensure
ductile behavior and performance in accordance with the design expressions. The
procedures apply to both rectangular and circular openings. Criteria for placement
of concentrated loads and positioning of openings are included, as are detailing
requirements for opening and slab reinforcement.
1.0 SCOPE
This specification (ASCE: "Proposed Specification for Structural Steel
Beams with Web Openings" 1992) is based on the design procedures and
guidelines presented by Darwin (1990) for both composite and noncom-
posite beams with web openings. Darwin (1990) drew heavily on design
guidelines presented by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980) for noncomposite
sections, as well as a wide range of other references, many of which are
cited in this commentary. Steel sections must meet the requirements of a
compact section for reasons explained in section 4.1 of this commentary.
The specification is formulated in terms of load and resistance factor
design because the capacity of beams at web openings can be accurately
expressed in terms of strength, but not in terms of stresses at stages below
ultimate.
2.0 DESIGN
Several design procedures have been developed for structural steel beams
with web openings (Cho and Redwood 1986; Clawson and Darwin 1980;
Darwin and Donahey 1988; Darwin and Lucas 1990; Donoghue 1982; Kuss-
man and Cooper 1976; Redwood 1968, 1971; Redwood and Poumbouras
1984; Redwood and Shrivastava 1980; Redwood and Wong 1982; Wang et
al. 1975). Most of the techniques have been developed for specific types of
members, such as noncomposite beams with reinforced openings (Kussman
and Cooper 1976; Redwood 1971; Redwood and Shrivastava 1980; Wang
et al. 1975) or composite beams with unreinforced openings (Cho and Red-
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 1993. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the A S C E Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on February 11,
1992. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 12,
December, 1992. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/92/0012-3325/$1.00 + $.15 per page.
Paper No. 3436.
3325
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

wood 1986; Clawson and Darwin 1980; Darwin and Donahey 1988; Red-
wood and Poumbouras 1984; Redwood and Wong 1982). In most cases,
these procedures have proved to be safe and conservative. To be used under
the provisions of this specification, a method must provide strength predic-
tions that accurately match experimental results such as detailed for non-
composite beams by Bower (1968), Clawson and Darwin (1980), Congdon
and Redwood (1970), Cooper and Snell (1972), Cooper et al. (1977), Lupien
and Redwood (1978), Redwood et al. (1978), and Redwood and Mc-
Cutcheon (1968), and for composite beams by Cho (1982), Clawson and
Darwin (1982), Donahey and Darwin (1988), Granade (1968), Redwood
and Poumbouras (1983), Redwood and Wong (1982), and "Structural In-
vestigation" (1984). The method must include the required resistance fac-
tors.
The procedure presented next provides a single technique that applies to
all types of structural steel beams with web openings, i.e., composite and
noncomposite members, reinforced and unreinforced openings. These pro-
cedures presented are generally easier to apply than the earlier techniques
and provide for more efficient designs (Lucas and Darwin 1990).
3.0 DESIGN PROCEDURE

3.1 Interaction of Flexure and Shear
The cubic interaction equation for flexure and shear presented in Spec-
ification Eq. (1) (ASCE: "Proposed" 1992) provides a consistent and con-
servative representation of the interaction between flexure and shear at web
openings in both composite and noncomposite beams (Darwin and Donahey
1988; Darwin 1990; Donahey and Darwin 1986; Lucas and Darwin 1990).
The upper limits on Vu and M„, design strengths <j>DV„ and §0Mn, respec-
tively, can be obtained by substituting the design capacities for the factored
loads in Specification Eq. (1) (ASCE: "Proposed" 1992)
-1/3
Mu
cJ>0M„
4>0V„ = W„. + 1 (1)
Vu
4>oV„
" / \3 1 ~Ui
<$>0M„ = $0Vn <$>oMm

ted
7 r-3 + 1 (2)
JO)
The values of 4>0, 0.9 for noncomposite sections and 0.85 for composite
sections (Darwin and Lucas 1990; Lucas and Darwin 1990), happen to
correspond to the values of §b used for bending of noncomposite and com-
posite sections, respectively, in the American Institute of Steel Construc-
tion's (AISC) Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural
Steel Buildings (1986b).
3.2 Maximum Nominal Flexural Capacity
Expressions for the maximum nominal flexural capacity of members at
an opening, Mm, are developed using the same assumptions as used in plastic
3326
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

design for members without openings. The procedures are limited to mem-
bers that meet the requirements of AISC compact sections (Load 1986b).
Noncomposite Beams
Fig. 1 presents stress diagrams for noncomposite sections in pure bending.

Unreinforced Openings. For members with unreinforced openings [Fig.
1(a)], the maximum capacity at the opening is expressed as
Mm = Mp - FyAAs (^ + e (3)
where Mp = plastic bending moment of unperforated section = FyZ;

A A., = n0tw;
h0 = depth of opening;
1 1—*y—H
u 1
t '
0
f /§ Openingi 1
rl h
'04
1 ^q Steel Section t
1
u
\ H/H
(a)
-K-A
2
< Ar
1 •w
(b) (C)
FIG. 1. Noncomposite Sections in Pure Bending: (a) Unreinforced Opening; (b)

Reinforced Opening, e =s Arlt„; (c) Reinforced Opening, e a Arlt„
3327
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

tw = thickness of web;
e = eccentricity of opening = \e\ for noncomposite sections;
Z = plastic section modulus; and
Fy = yield strength of steel.

Reinforced Openings. For members with reinforcement of area Ar along
both the top and bottom edge of the opening, and eccentricity e < Arltw
[Fig. 1(b)], the maximum moment may be expressed as
Mm = Mp- Fy K (-f + Ke - e2 ) + Arh0 sMp (4)
In the development of Commentary Eq. (4), the reinforcement is assumed

to be concentrated along the top and bottom edges of the opening, and the
thickness of the reinforcement is assumed to be small. These assumptions
provide a conservative value for Mm and allow these simplified expression
to be used. For e =£ 0, the plastic neutral axis (PNA) will be located within
the reinforcing bar at the edge of the opening closest to the centroid of the
original steel section.
For members with larger eccentricities [Fig. 1(c)], i.e., e > Ar/tw, the
maximum moment capacity is
Mm = MP- FyAAs I ^ + e - ^j < Mp (5)
where AAS = hjw - 1Ar.

Like Commentary Eq. (4), Commentary Eq. (5) is based on the as-
sumptions that the reinforcement is concentrated along the top and bottom
edges of the opening and that the thickness of the reinforcement is small.
In this case, however, the PNA lies in the web of the larger tee.
Commentary Eqs. (3)-(5) provide results that are identical to those ob-
tained for the maximum flexural capacity in "Rectangular, Concentric"
(1981, 1986).
Composite Beams
Fig. 2 illustrates stress diagrams for composite sections in pure bending.
In each case, the force in the concrete Pc, is limited to the lower of the
concrete compressive strength, the shear connector capacity, or the yield
strength of the net steel section
Pc s 0.85/# e f e (6a)
Pc^NQ„ (66)
PcsT = FyAm (6c)
where/c = concrete compressive strength;
be = effective width of concrete slab (Load 1986b);
te = effective thickness of concrete slab ( = ts for solid slab; = t's for
slab with ribs perpendicular to steel beam; = (t's + ts)l2 for slab
with ribs parallel to steel beam);
3328
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

0.85 f e
A_r
0.85 fe (a) 0.85/;.
~\ /lHM,
7
— a
• — - ^
(b) (c)
FIG. 2. Composite Sections in Pure Bending: (a) Neutral Axis above Top of Flange;
(b) Neutral Axis in Flange; (c) Neutral Axis in Web
4 = total thickness of concrete slab;

t's = thickness of slab above the rib;
N = number of shear connectors between the high moment end of the
opening and the support;
Qn = individual shear connector capacity, including reduction factor for
ribbed slabs (Load 1986b);
3329
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

T" = maximum tensile force in the net steel section;
Asn = net steel area = As — hjw + 2Ar; and
As = cross sectional area of steel in unperforated member.
The maximum moment capacity, Mm, depends on which of the inequalities

in Commentary Eq. (6) governs.
If Pc = T [Commentary Eq. (6c) and Fig. 2(a)]
d AAse
Mm = T - + + ts (7)
2 Asn
where LAS = hj„, - 2Ar;
e = opening eccentricity; for composite sections, positive when the center
line of the opening is above the center line of the steel section; and
a = depth of concrete compression block = Pcl(0.&5f'cbe) for solid slabs
and ribbed slabs for which a < t's.
If a > t's, as it can be for ribbed slabs with longitudinal ribs, the term (r,
- a/2) in Commentary Eq. (7) must be replaced with the appropriate
expression for the distance between the top of the steel flange and the
centroid of the concrete force.
If Pc < T [Commentary Eqs. (6a) or (6b)], the plastic neutral axis (PNA)
is in either the flange or the web of the top tee, based on whether
Pc + 2FyAf \ T (8a)
or
Pc + 2FyAf < T (86)
where Af = the flange area = bftf.
Commentary Eqs. (8a) and (8b) are derived from the inequalities Pc +
FyAf > Fy(Am - Af) and Pc + FyAf < Fy(Asn - Af), respectively, which
determine whether the force in the concrete, Pc, and the force in the flange,
FyAf, is greater than or less than the force that can be developed in the
steel section below the flange.
If Commentary Eq. (8a) governs, the PNA is in the flange (Fig. 2b) at
a distance x = (T — Pc)/(2bfFy) from the top flange. In this case
d k.Ase - bfx'
Mm = V + P, (9)
2 A...
If Commentary Eq. (&b) governs, the PNA is in the web [Fig. 2(c)] at a
distance x = (As„ - 2A/)/(2f,„) - PJ(2Fytw) + tf from the top of the
flange. In this case
&Ase - (bf - Qtj twx2

M„ T + P,\U - (10)
A..
Commentary Eqs. (7), (9), and (10) can be replaced by two simplified
expressions (Darwin 1990; Darwin and Lucas 1990) with little loss in ac-
curacy. For beams in which the PNA in the unperforated member is located
at or above the top of the flange, the value of Mm may be approximated in
3330
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

terms of the nominal capacity of the unperforated composite section at the
location of the opening, Mpc
M =, . M(A,„ +F AA,e\ Mpc

v
(11)
- ^\t ^Cr
Commentary Eq. (11) is always conservative for Am < As. The values of
Mpc can be conveniently obtained from part 4 of the AISC Load and Resis-
tance Factor Design Manual (1986a).
For beams in which the PNA in the unperforated member is located below
the top of the flange and Pc > Pcmin = Fy[(3/4)twd - AAS], the value of
Mm may be approximated by Commentary Eq. (12)
Mm = FyAm - + FyAAse + Pc L - ^J < Mpc (12)
where ts = thickness of slab; and

Pc = force in the concrete [Commentary Eq. (6)].
Commentary Eq. (12) is also accurate for members in which the PNA in
the unperforated section is located at or above the top of the flange. If Pc
< Fy[(3/4)twd - AAJ, Commentary Eqs. (9) or (10), as appropriate, should
be used to calculate Mm.
When reinforcement is used, the value of Mm in Commentary Eqs. (7)
and (9) through (12) is limited to M the flexural strength of the unper-
forated composite beam (Darwin 1990; Lucas and Darwin 1990). This re-
quirement, along with a similar limitation for steel beams (Redwood and
Shrivastava 1980), is required to insure safe designs.
3.3 Maximum Nominal Shear Capacity
3.3. a General Equations

The maximum shear capacity at a web opening coincides with the for-
mation of plastic hinges at all four corners of the opening (Fig. 3) (Clawson
and Darwin 1982; Darwin and Donahey 1988). The maximum shear capacity
is calculated assuming that there is no axial force in the tees (regions above
and below the opening). The bending moments that act on the tees are due
to shear at the opening and are often referred to as "secondary bending
moments." The ends of the opening subjected to positive and negative
secondary bending moments are referred to as the high and low moment
ends of the opening (right and left sides of Fig. 3), respectively.
The maximum shear capacity at the opening is equal to the sum of the
shear capacities of the top and bottom tees. The capacity of the individual
tees, as expressed in Specification Eq. (2) (ASCE: "Proposed" 1992), is
obtained by solving the shear-secondary moment equilibrium equations for
the tee and accounting for interaction between shear and axial stresses within
the steel web. Eq. (2) in "Proposed" (ASCE 1992) was developed using a
simplified version of the von Mises yield criterion
Fy = y/2Fy - V 3 T (13)
where Fy = reduced axial strength; and
T = web shear stress,
3331
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

0.85 fc 0.85 fc
Top
Tea
Bottom
Tea
High
Moment
End
FIG. 3. Axial Stress Distributions for Opening at Maximum Shear: Fy = Reduced

Axial Strength of Steel in Web Due to Cbmbined Axial Stress and Shear Stress
0.85 fe 0.85 fc
. W, -r Knf,
/ t 4
\ r\ L, dh
Top
TM
Bottom
Tea
High
Moment
End
FIG. 4. Simplified Axial Stress Distributions for Opening at Maximum Shear; Fy

= Reduced Axial Strength of Steel in Web Due to Combined Axial Stress and Shear
Stress
and simplifying the stress distributions illustrated in Fig. 3 to those shown

in Fig. 4, which treat the resultants of the stresses in the flanges as acting
at the outside edges of the respective flanges. The simplifications illustrated
in Fig. 4 are obtained by recognizing that: (1) Under pure shear, the PNA
of the tee is usually in the flange; and (2) the exact nature of the stresses
in the flange do not play an important role in the shear-secondary bending
moment equilibrium equations, if the secondary moments are taken about
3332
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

the outside of the flange. The full details of the derivation are presented
by Donahey and Darwin (1986) and Lucas and Darwin (1990).
The use of a modified tee depth, s„ for the calculation of the aspect ratio
of the tee, v, is used to account for movement of the plastic neutral axis in
the tee due to the presence of reinforcement. As the amount of reinforce-
ment increases, the PNA moves further from the outside, thus reducing the
effective moment arm of both the normal stresses in the web and the re-
inforcement. The effect of this movement is handled by modifying s, in the
calculation of v only. The actual value of st should be used to calculate (x
in Specification Eq. (3) (ASCE: "Proposed" 1992).
3.3.b Top Tee in Composite Beams

The force in the concrete at the high moment opening, Pc,„ is limited by
the concrete strength, the shear connector capacity, and the top tee tensile
strength in Specification Eqs. (4a), (4b), and (4c), respectively (ASCE:
"Proposed" 1992); N is taken as the number of shear connectors between
the high moment end of the opening and the support rather than the point
of zero moment, because tests (Donahey and Darwin 1986,1988) show that
shear studs participate, even in negative moment regions, due to lateral
movement of the slab. The force at the low moment end of the opening,
Pci in Specification Eq. (5), is based on Pch and the shear connector capacity
over the opening, N0Q„.
The distances from the top of the flange to the centroid of the concrete
stress blocks at the high and low moment ends of the opening, dh and d,,
respectively, are calculated using Specification Eqs. (6) and (7). The spec-
ification provides guidance for calculating d, for slabs with longitudinal ribs.
Specification Eq. (2) for Vml is based on the assumption that all of the
shear in the tee is carried by the steel web. This assumption may be over-
conservative for top tees in composite beams since the concrete slab also
carries shear. If the term (V6 + \i)/(v + V3) in Specification Eq. (2)
exceeds 1.0, the web has fully yielded in shear. Under this state of stress,
the force in the concrete, Pch, is limited to the combined axial strength of
the flange and the reinforcement in the top tee. In this case, Pch in Speci-
fication Eq. (4c) must be replaced by Specification Eq. (9). Upon checking
the limiting value of Pch, and modifying Pd and u, if necessary, Specification
Eq. (8) is used to calculate the capacity of the tee.
Finally, the capacity of the tee may not exceed the plastic shear capacity
of the cross-section, as given in Specification Eq. (10) (Darwin et al. 1988,
1990). The effective area of the concrete, Avc, used in Specification Eq.
(10) was originally proposed by Clawson and Darwin (1980) and later mod-
ified by Donahey and Darwin (1986) to provide a realistic upper limit on
the contribution of the concrete to shear capacity.
4.0 DESIGN CRITERIA
The design criteria presented in 4.0 are based on both theoretical con-
siderations and experimental observations. Many of the criteria were de-
veloped for noncomposite beams (Redwood and Shrivastava 1980) and ex-
tended as appropriate to composite beams (Darwin 1990). The criteria help
insure that the limit states can be obtained upon which the design formulas
are based.
3333
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

4.1 Steel Section
Steel sections must meet the AISC requirements for compact sections
(Load 1986b) to insure that local instabilities, specifically buckling of the
compression flange, do not occur. The equations presented in 3.0 have been
validated experimentally only for compact sections (Darwin and Lucas 1990;
Lucas and Darwin 1990).
4.2 Web Buckling

The criteria to prevent web buckling are based on the work reported by
Redwood and Uenoya (1979) for steel sections. The recommendations are
adopted in whole for noncomposite members and relaxed slightly for com-
posite members to account for the portion of the shear carried by the
concrete slab. The higher limit on the opening parameter, p0, of 6.0 for
composite sections versus 5.6 for steel sections is based on successful test
results (Donahey and Darwin 1986, 1988).
4.3 Buckling of Tee-Shaped Compression Zone

Unreinforced, noncomposite tees in compression must be checked to
insure that buckling does not occur. This is of primary concern for large
openings in regions of high moment (Redwood and Shrivastava 1980). MJ
(Vud) > 20 is used to define a high moment region. Buckling is unlikely to
occur in a reinforced tee (Redwood and Shrivastava 1980).
4.4 Lateral Buckling

The design criteria for lateral buckling are based on the recommendations
in Redwood and Shrivastava (1980) and Suggested Design Guides (Subcom-
mittee 1971, 1973). Openings have little effect on the lateral stability of W-
shaped sections. However, design expressions have not been formulated to
predict the inelastic lateral buckling capacity of a member with an opening,
and to be safe, the strength of the member should be governed by a point
remote from the opening.
The effect of the opening may be accounted for by multiplying the tor-
sional constant of the section, / , by
"l - (Vi —MiT <! (14)

y
\Lb) tw(d + 2bf)\ '
where Lh = unbraced length of compression flange; and
A A, = hatw - 2Ar.
In members reinforced on only one side of the web, use Ar = 0 for the
calculation of AAS in Commentary Eq. (14). Members reinforced on one
side of the web should not be used for long laterally unsupported spans,
and for shorter spans, the lateral bracing closest to the opening should be
designed for an additional load equal to 2% of the force in the compression
flange (Redwood and Shrivastava 1980).
Commentary Eq. (14) is an extension (Darwin 1990) of the recommen-
dations made in Redwood and Shrivastava (1980) and Suggested Design
Guides (Subcommittee 1971, 1973) for use with the lateral buckling pro-
visions of design specifications (Load 1986b). It is recommended that Com-
mentary Eq. (14) be applied only if the value of the expression is less than
0.90 (Redwood and Shrivastava 1980).
3334
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

4.5 Opening Depth
The limitations on opening depth are based on both the practical consid-
eration that opening depths in excess of 70% of the section depth are
unrealistically large and the fact that only two beams out of the 85 used to
establish the (j>-factors in 3.1 of the specification had openings with depths
in excess of 0.7d.
4.6 Tee Proportions

The limitations on the depths of the top and bottom tees are based on
the need to transfer some load over the opening and a lack of test data for
shallower tees. The upper limit of 12 on the aspect ratio of the tees, v, is
based on a lack of data with members with greater aspect ratios. These
limits, in conjunction with the limitations onp0, prevent the use of openings
for which Specification Eq. (2) (ASCE: "Proposed" 1992) would provide
unconservative predictions of Vmt (Darwin 1990).
4.7 Corner Radii

The limitations on the corner radii are based on the work reported by
Frost and Leffler (1971), which indicates that radii meeting these require-
ments do not adversely affect the fatigue capacity of a member. In spite of
this point, openings are not recommended for members that will be sub-
jected to significant cyclic or fatigue loading.
4.8 Concentrated Loads

Concentrated loads are not permitted over the opening because the design
formulas do not account for the local bending and shear that would be
caused by a concentrated load on a tee. If a concentrated load must be
placed at an opening, additional analyses will be necessary to determine the
effect of the load on the strength of the member at the opening.
The limitations on the locations of concentrated loads near openings to
prevent web crippling are based on an extension (Darwin 1990) of the criteria
presented by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980).
4.9 Placement of Opening

The requirement that openings be placed no closer than a distance d to
a support limits the horizontal shear stresses that must be transferred by
the web between the opening and the support.
4.10 Spacing Between Openings

The limits on spacing between openings in Specification Eqs. (11) and
(12) (ASCE: "Proposed" 1992) are meant to insure that a plastic mechanism
involving interaction between openings will not develop, instability of the
web posts between openings will not occur, and web posts between openings
will not yield in shear (Redwood and Shrivastava 1980). Guidance for the
design of openings that do not meet the criteria in Specification Eqs. (11)
and (12) may be found in Redwood (1973, 1983). Specification Eqs. (13a)
and (13b) limit the potential problem of slab bridging between adjacent
openings (Darwin 1990).
4.11 Circular Openings

The criteria for converting circular openings to equivalent rectangular
openings for application with the design expressions come from Redwood
and Shrivastava (1980) and are based on an investigation into the location
3335
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

of plastic hinges relative to the center line of openings in steel members
(Redwood 1969). These conversions have been adopted for composite beams
as well (Darwin 1990). The use of D0 for h0 for both shear and bending in
members with reinforced web openings is due to the fact that the reinforce-
ment is adjacent to the opening. Treating the reinforcement as if it were

adjacent to a shallower opening would provide an unconservative value for
vm.
4.12 Opening Reinforcement
Reinforcement should be placed as close as possible to the edges of the
opening, leaving adequate clearance for fillet welds, if required, on both
sides of the reinforcement. Continuous welds are required because the de-
sign expressions are based on the assumption that full strain compatibility
exists between the reinforcement and the steel section.
Fillet welds are used most commonly to attach the reinforcement to the
web. If a single size fillet weld is used on one side of the bar within the
length of the opening and both sides of the bar within the extensions, the
reinforcement must be extended beyond the opening by a distance of at
least a0IA. The extension requirement of V3Ar/(2fM,) insures that the shear
strength of the web is not exceeded.
The required strength of the weld within the length of the opening is
Kr = <|>02Pr (15)
where c()0 = 0.90 for steel beams and 0.85 for composite beams;
P = F A < Fy t" a°
r y r
~ 2V3
Ar = cross-sectional area of reinforcement above or below the opening.
The required strength of a weld within each extension is
Rwr = $0FyAr (16)
The factor 2 in Commentary Eq. (15) is used because the reinforcement is
in tension on one side of the opening and in compression on the other end
when the tee is subjected to shear (Figs. 3 and 4). Within the extensions,
the reinforcement must be anchored to provide the full yield strength of
the bars since the expressions for M,n are based on this assumption.
The terms 2Pr in Commentary Eq. (15) and FyAr in Commentary Eq.
(16) are multiplied by (J>0 to convert these forces into equivalent factored
loads. The weld is then designed to resist the factored load, Rwr, with a
value of (J> = 0.75 (Load 1986b). The result is a design that is consistent
with the Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings (1986b).
The criteria for placing the reinforcement on one side of the web limit
the reductions in strength caused by out-of-plane deflections caused by
eccentric loading of the reinforcement (Lupien and Redwood 1978). The
limitations on the area of reinforcement, Ar, and the aspect ratio of the
opening, a0lh0, represent the extreme values that have been tested. The
limitation on sjtw is primarily empirical. The limitation on MJ{Vud) restricts
the use of unsymmetrical reinforcement to regions subject to some shear
loading. For regions subjected to pure bending or negligibly low shear, the
out-of-plane deflections of the web can be severe. Under shear, the lateral
3336
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

deformation mode caused by the unsymmetrical reinforcement changes to
allow a greater capacity to be developed. Additional guidance is given by
Lupien and Redwood (1978) for the use of unsymmetrical reinforcement in
regions of pure bending or very low shear.
The provisions of 4.12 should not be construed to restrict the use of flange
cover plates, or a thickened concrete slab in composite beams, which are
considered to be modifications of the unperforated section.
4.13 Composite Members
4.13.a
There is strong experimental evidence to suggest that the concrete slab
improves the shear strength at a web opening, even in regions of negative
bending. However, since no tests have actually been carried out for openings
in negative moment regions, the traditional approach, ignoring the contri-
bution of the concrete slab, is taken for the design of web openings in
negative moment regions of composite members.
4.13.b
Slabs tend to crack both transversely and longitudinally in the vicinity of
web openings. The minimum slab reinforcement ratio of 0.0025 is used to
limit crack width and improve the postcrack strength of the slab in the
vicinity of a web opening (Donahey and Darwin 1986, 1988).
4.13.C
At failure, a significant amount of bridging (lifting of the slab from the
steel section) tends to occur between the low moment end of the opening
and a point past the high moment end of the opening in the direction of
increasing moment (Donahey and Darwin 1986, 1988). The required min-
imum number of shear connectors in the direction of increasing moment
limits bridging, although the studs do not directly enter into the calculation
of member strength at the opening. The minimum of two studs per foot
(0.3 m) applies to the total number of studs. If this criteria is already satisfied
by normal stud requirements, additional shear connectors are not needed.
4.13.d
This requirement recognizes that a composite beam with adequate strength
at a web opening may not provide adequate capacity during construction,
when it must perform as a noncomposite member.
4.14 Fatigue
Web openings are not recommended for members that will be subjected
to significant cyclic or fatigue loading. This is due to both a lack of exper-
imental data and a number of specific considerations. However, most mem-
bers in buildings are not subject to a large enough number of cycles of
sufficient amplitude to require design for fatigue.
A web opening in a steel beam can create severe stress concentrations,
especially near the corners of an opening (Clawson and Darwin 1980). The
magnitude of the stresses are dependent upon several factors, including: (1)
The geometry and location of the opening; (2) workmanship; (3) corner
radius; and (4) loading (Frost and Leffler 1971). Reinforcement of an open-
ing with bars welded to the web can also increase local stresses. High lo-
calized stresses under fatigue (cyclic) load conditions can lead to crack
3337
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

initiation and fracture. Prudent design of web openings for fatigue loading
must include a prediction of stresses in the vicinity of the opening, high-
quality workmanship to reduce stress concentrations due to flame cutting
and welding, and proper detailing of corner geometry and welds.
4.15 Deflections
Web openings reduce the local moment of inertia of beams, which results
in an increase in the maximum deflection. Openings also result in a local
decrease in the shear stiffness, which leads to deflections through the length
of the opening. The first effect is often greatest when the opening is located
in a region of high moment, the latter when the opening is in a region of
high shear. The effects of the opening on member deformation must be
considered by the engineer. However, in most cases, the effect of a single
web opening on deflection is small. A review of analysis methods that
account for the effects of web openings on beam deflection is presented by
Darwin (1990).
APPENDIX I. DESIGN EXAMPLE
Given
A W16 x 31 composite section with Fy = 36 ksi has been selected to
support a service live load of 1.0 kips/ft and a service dead load of 0.65
kips/ft. The beam span and spacing are 30 ft and 10 ft, respectively. The
total slab thickness is 6.25 in. The slab is placed on a composite metal deck
with a rib depth of 3 in., an average rib width of 6 in., and a rib spacing of
12 in. The ribs are oriented perpendicular to the beam center line {be = 90
in.). Lightweight concrete (f'c = 3.5 ksi [115 pcf]) is used. A total of 26
3/4 in. diameter X 5 in. headed studs (Qn = 19.8 kips) have been selected.
Shored construction is specified. [Note: The basic beam design is identical
to example 1, pages 4-9 through 4-12 of the AISC Load and Resistance
Factor Design Manual (1986a).]
A 10 in. x 20 in. rectangular opening is required at the quarter point of
the span (Fig. 5). Determine if the opening can be placed in the selected
beam. If not, modify the design to allow the same beam depth to be used.
Solution
A. Loads
Factored load = 1.2(0.65) + 1.6(1.0) = 2.38 kips/ft.
n r-\ r\ r\ r\ r\ cxjziu^xjzi^xj^Li, \ n r\ r\ r\j-\
^Opening 4 Support
30'-0"
Ar
FIG. 5. Opening Location
3338
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

B. Moment and Shear at Quarter Point
Mu = 2.38(7.5)(30 - 7.5)/2 = 200.8 ft-kips = 2410 in.-kip and Vu =
2.38(30/2 - 7.5) = 17.9 kips.
C. Section Properties
As = 9.12 in.2, d = 15. 1 in., tw = 0.275 in., bf = 5.525 in., tf = 0.440
in., ts = 6.25 in., te = t's -- 3.25 in., andfr„ = 90 in.
D. Preliminary Calculations
Preliminary calculations indicate that the selected beam must be modified
to accept the required opening. It should be noted that a number of options
are available, including: (1) Use of a heavier section; (2) use of higher
strength steel, and (3) use of reinforcement at the opening. For this example,
the second and third options will be investigated. Final selection will be
dependent upon material and fabrication costs.
E. Check the Capacity Using Fy = 50 ksi

Opening and tee properties (see Fig. 6):
hD = 10 in. and a0 = 20 in.
s, = 2.94 in. for both the top and bottom tees
e = 0.0
AAS = hjw - 2Ar = 10(0.275) - 0 = 2.75 in.2
As„ = As - AA = 9.12 - 2.75 = 6.37 in.2
v = ajs, = 20/2.94 = 6.80 for each tee
Check proportioning guidelines:
Compression flange (section 4.1)
Rolled section => compact O.K.
Web limits and limit on Vm (section 4.2)
(d - 2tf) . 420
< O.K.
Opening <5
3.25 in.
/ \ / \ t 7- 3.00 in.
2.94 in.
10 in. _&.
2.94 in.
FIG. 6. Unreinforced Opening Details

3339
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

— = 2 < 3 O.K.
K
p c
"' ~ 3 ~ 3\V3 J 3\ V3
+ Vc = 84 + Vc
" - ? „ + ^ = 2 + H-" 8 < 6 » OK '

Opening proportions (sections 4.5 and 4.6)
hjd = 10/15.88 = 0.63 < 0.7 O.K.
st = 2.94 > 0.15d = 0.15(15.88) = 2.38 for top tee O.K.
st = 2.94 > 0.12d = 0.12(15.88) = 1.90 for bottom tee O.K.
v = ajs, = 6.80 < 12 O.K.
Maximum Moment Capacity (Section 3.2). Estimate the number of studs
from the high moment end of the opening to the support, N, to be 7 (specify
one stud per rib for the last 8 ft of the span). Use Commentary Eqs. (6a),
(6b), and (6c) to calculate the force in the concrete:
Pc < 0.85f'cbete = 0.85(3.5)(90)(3.25) = 870 kips
Pc s NQn = 7(19.8) = 139 kips controls
pc s r = FyAm = 50(6.37) = 319 kips
Since Pc < V and Pc + 2FyAf = 139 + 2(50)(5.525)(0.440) = 382 kips
> T' [Commentary Eq. (8a)], the PNA is in the flange and Mm is given by
Commentary Eq. (9):
"- -T' {h ^u^) + '- ('• -1

where x = (J' - Pc)/(2bfFy) = (319 - 139)/[2(5.525)(50)] = 0.326 in.
Therefore
15.88 , 2.75(0.0) - 5.525(0.326)2\
M,„ = 319 | - ^ - + - " v - - ' rn„ ^ "' I
6.37
139
+ 139 | 6.25
1.7(3.5)(90),
= 3336 in.-kip
Maximum Shear Capacity (Section 3.3)
Bottom tee:
Vpt = Fytwst/V3 = 50(0.275)(2.94)/V3 = 23.3 kips
Using Specification Eq. (2) with |x = 0 and v = 6.80:
3340
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

V6 + u. V6 + 0
v
- = T w I y" =
6.80 + v ^ ( 2 3 ' 3 ) = 6 7 kips
-
Top tee:
Vp, = Fytws,lV?> = 50(0.275)(2.94)/V3 = 23.3 kips

The value of u, must be calculated for the top tee. The net area of steel in
the top tee is Ast = AJ2 - etw = 6.37/2 - 0.0(0.275) = 3.19 in.2. The
force in the concrete at the high moment end of the opening is obtained
using Specification Eqs. (4a), (4b), and (4c).
Pch < 0.85f'cbete = 0.85(3.5)(90)(3.25) = 870 kips
Pch =s NQ„ = 7(19.8) = 139 kips controls
Pch < FyAsl = 50(3.19) = 159 kips
The force in the concrete at the low moment end of the opening is found
using Specification Eq. (5). Assume the minimum number of ribs over the
opening, N0, is 1 (conservative).
Pc = Pen - N0Qn s 0
= 139 - 1(19.8) = 119 kips
Calculate dh and dt using Specification Eqs. (6) and (7b), respectively:
P 139
d = t = 6 25 _ = 5 in
" ' - hlfbe ' 1.7(3.5)(90) -" -
P 119
d n + 625 3 25 +
' = '- - Tnhr - ' i.7(3.5)(90) = 3 ' 2 2 in
'
Calculate u. using Specification Eq. (3)
2Prdr + Pcndh - Pcld, 0 + 139(5.99) - 119(3.22) _
* Vpts, 23.3(2.94) ^ °
Check (V6 + |x)/(v + V5):
V 6 + \L _ V6 + 6.56
= 1.06 > 1.0
v + V 3 ~ 6.80 + V 3
Therefore, Vm, must be calculated using Specification Eq. (8). The value of
u. to be used in Specification Eq. (8) is now calculated using values for Pch
and Pcl, which are limited by Specification Eqs. (4a), (4b), and (9). Using
Specification Eq. (9):
Pch =£ Fy[tf(bf - tw) + Ar] = 50[0.440(5.525 - 0.275) + 0]
= 116 kips controls
Therefore
Pd = Pch - N0Qn = 116 - 1(19.8) = 96 kips
dh and d, must also be recalculated:
3341
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

?ch 116
dh = ts - = 6.25 - 6.03 in.
l.V'cbe 1.7(3.5)(90)
Pel 96
d, = ts - t's + = 6.25 - 3.25 + = 3.18 in.
l-lf'cbe ""~ " • " ' 1.7(3.5)(90)

Recalculate JJL:
The shear capacity is given by Specification Eq. (8):
_ 2Prdr + Pchdh - Pcld, _ 0 + 116(6.03) - 96(3.18) _
= 5.75
Vpts, 23.3(2.94)
5.75
V ,= - V = (23.3) = 19.7 > Vpt = 23.3 kips
6.80
Therefore, Vmt = 2 3 . 3 kips.
Check to see if Vm, s Vmt(sh) [Specification Eq. (10c)]:
Vmt{sh) = Vpt + Q.ll\fcAvc = 23.3 + 0.1lV33(3)(6.25)(3.25)
= 35.8 kips O.K.
Total Shear Capacity
Vm = XVml = 6.7 + 23.3 = 30.0 kips < | Vp + Vc O.K.
Check the interaction [Specification Eq. (1)]:
M„ V„
+ < 1.0
3
2,410 17.9
+ = 0.61 + 0.35 = 0.96 O.K.
0.85(3,336) 0.85(30.0)
F. Check the Capacity Using Fy = 36 ksi and Ar = 0.75 in.2 at

Each Tee
Select reinforcement:
Try a single, 3/8 x 2 bar at each tee. Use a single fillet weld within the
opening length (section 4.12) and place the bars with dr = 2.75 in. for both
tees (Fig. 7).
Check for reinforcement on one side only (section 4.12):
i4p5=0.75<f = ^ ^ = o. 810 .K.
^ = 2 < 2.5 O.K.

K
£, = ^ 9 4 = 10.7 < 1^ = 23.3 o.K.
t„ 0.275
3342
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

Opening and Bar
r
Hr~\ 11 r h tr-A
!
i
"^X^LZ^Z
i
7.
0.25 ia
3.00in.
.-ei.. 2.94 in.
3— 12.94 h.
Mil
• \\n » a In. > 30 h. B«r CTyp.)
FIG. 7. Reinforced Opening Details
M„ 2,410
= 8.5 < 20 O.K.
y„rf 17.9(15.88)
Maximum Moment Capacity
AA, = h0tw - 2Ar = 10(0.275) - 2(0.75) = 1.25 in.2
and
As„ = As - M.s = 9.12 - 1.25 = 7.87 in.2
Use Commentary Eqs. (6a), (6b), and (6c) to calculate the force in the
concrete:
Pc < 0.85/^,4 = 0.85(3.5)(90)(3.25) = 870 kips
Pc ^ NQn = 7(19.8) = 139 kips controls
Pc<T' = FyAsn = 36(7.87) = 283 kips
Again, since Pc < T and Pc + 2FyAf = 139 + 2(36)(5.525)(0.440) = 314
kips > T" [Commentary Eq. (8a)], the PNA is in the flange and Mm is given
by Commentary Eq. (9)
M„, = v (d- + AAe

~ b>*2) +PAt.
where
T - Pr 283 - 139
x = = 0.362 in.
2bfFy 2(5.525)(36)
Therefore
* „ - 283 | ' » y » + 1-25(0.0) -gWM&j
139
139 6.25
1.7(3.5)(90)/
3343
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

= 3,053 in.-kip < Mp = 3,385 for the unperforated section O.K.
Maximum Shear Capacity
Per section X3.3, the axial force in the opening reinforcement is given
by
Ft a
p r = FA
y r < y 'V-°
~ 2V3
Therefore,
0 2 0
Pr = 36(0.75) = 27.0 kips * ^ C ^ ) = 57.2 kips
Bottom tee:
^ = ^ = 36(0.275^(2.94) = 168k .ps
With reinforcement at the bottom tee, (JL is nonzero (Specification Eq. 3).
_ 2Prdr + Pchdh - Pcldi _ 2(27.0)(2.75) + 0 - 0
^" V^, 16.8(2.94)
For reinforced openings, v is initially given by v = a 0 /s, = a0/[sr - A r /
(26,)]. Therefore, v = 20/{2.94 - 0.75/[2(5.525)]} = 6.96. Using Specifi-
cation Eq. (2) with JJL = 3.00 and v = 6.96:
V6 + (JL V6 4- 3.00
V V
- = VT^ * = 6 * ^ / 3 (16-8^ = 10'5 ^
Top tee:
p = Fytwst =36(0.275)(2.94) = ps
' "W vJ—
As with the unreinforced opening, Pch must be found before calculating \i.
Since Specification Eq. (4c) gives Pch = K,AM = Fy(A„,/2 - etw) = 36(7.87/
2 - 0(0.275)) = 141, Specification Eq. (Ab) again provides the initial limit
on the concrete force with Pch - 139 kips. The value for |x [Specification
Eq. (3)] is therefore
2Prdr + Pchdh - Pc,d, = 2(27.0)(2.75) + 139(5.99) - 119(3.22)
^ Vpts, 16.8(2.94)
= 12.1
Check (V6 + |x)/(v + V3):
V6 + n, V6 + 12.1
£ = -F= = 1.68 > 1.0
v + V3 6.96 + V 3
Fcft is therefore limited by the combined yield capacity of the top flange
and the reinforcement [Specification Eq. (9)]
Pch =£ Fy[tf(bf - tw) + Ar] = 36[0.440(5.525 - 0.275) + 0.75]
= 110 kips
3344
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

Therefore
Pd = Pch - N0Qn = HO - 1(19.8) = 90 kips
dh and d, are given by
d = = 6 25 = 6 04in
" '• " ilk ' - 1.7(3.5)(90) - '
di
= '• - < ;+ uKte = 6 - 2 5 -3-25 + UiBjwr3-17 in
-
fx [Specification Eq. (3)] is now given by
= 2Prdr + Pchdh - Pcld, = 2(27.0)(2.75) + 110(6.04) - 90(3.17)
^ Vplst 16.8(2.94)
= 10.7
Finally, v = ajst = 6.80 for use in Specification Eq. (8)
y =
- I^ = S = 26 4kipS
'
Check to see if Vm, < Vm,(sh) [Specification Eq. (10a)]
Vmt{sh) = Vpt + 0.llVfcAvc = 16.8 + 0.1lV53(3)(6.25)(3.25)
= 29.4 kips O.K.
Total Shear Capacity
Vm = 2Vra, = 10.5 + 26.4 = 36.9 kips < | Vp + Vc = 84 + Vc O.K.
Check the interaction [Specification Eq. (1)]
4>0M,J \4>0Vm
2,410 17.9
-- 0.80 + 0.18 = 0.98 O.K.
0.85(3,053) + 0.85(36.9)
Reinforcement details (Section 4.12):
V3A V3(0.75)
Extension a _ _ r = _____ = 2 . 3 6 in.
& a J A = 5.0 in. controls

A 5 in. extension is therefore required at each end of the opening. Use a
3/8 in. x 2 in. x 30 in. bar centered at each tee (see Fig. 7). To develop
the reinforcement, use a single 3/16 in. fillet weld within the length of the
opening and two 3/16 in. fillets within the extensions.
Slab reinforcement and stud details (section 4.13):
Slab reinforcement > 0.0025(12 in.)4 = 0.0025(12)(6.25) = 0.19 in.2/ft
width.
Use No. 4 bars at 12 in. on center.
3345
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

Specify 2 studs per rib in the first two ribs between the opening and the
center line of the span.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Commentary and the accompanying Specification were written by

the ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures in
Steel and Concrete. The members are:
David Darwin, Chairman, University of Kansas
Rex C. Donahey, Secretary, Ellerbe Becket
William C. Clawson, Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff
Gregory G. Deierlein, Cornell University
Roberto T. Leon, University of Minnesota
APPENDIX II. CONVERSION TO SI CUSTOMARY UNITS
To convert To Multiply by
ft m 0.305
in. mm 25.4
in.-kip m-N 112.98
kip kN 4.448
kip/ft kN/m 14.59
ksi N/mm2 6.895
APPENDIX III. REFERENCES

ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Concrete Structures in Steel and
Concrete. (1992). "Proposed specification for structural steel beams with web
openings." /. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 118(12), 3315-3324.
Bower, J. E. (1968). "Ultimate strength of beams with rectangular holes." J. Struct.
Div., ASCE, 94(6), 1315-1337.
Cho, S. H. (1982). "An investigation on the strength of composite beams with web
openings." M.S. Arch. Eng. Thesis, Hanyong University, Seoul, Korea.
Cho, S. H., and Redwood, R. G. (1986). "The design of composite beams with web
openings." Struct. Engrg. Series No. 86-2, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
Clawson, W. C , and Darwin, D. (1980). "Composite beams with web openings."
SM Report No. 4, Univ. of Kansas Ctr. for Res., Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kans.
Clawson, W. C , and Darwin, D. (1982). "Tests of composite beams with web
openings." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 108(1), 145-162.
Congdon, J. G., and Redwood, R. G. (1970). "Plastic behavior of beams with
reinforced holes." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 96(9), 1933-1955.
Cooper, P. B., and Snell, R. R. (1972). "Tests on beams with reinforced web
openings." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 98(3), 611-632.
Cooper, P. B., Snell, R. R., and Knostman, H. D. (1977). "Failure tests on beams
with eccentric web holes." /. Struct. Div., ASCE, 103(9), 1731-1737.
Darwin, D. (1990). Design of steel and composite beams with web openings. American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, 111.
Darwin, D., and Donahey, R. C. (1988). "LRFD for composite beams with un-
reinforced web openings." /. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114(3), 535-552.
Darwin D., and Lucas, W. C. (1990). "LRFD for steel and composite beams with
web openings." /. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 116(6), 1579-1593.
Donahey, R. C , and Darwin, D. (1986). "Performance and design of composite
beams with web openings." SM Report No. 18, Univ. of Kansas Ctr. for Res.,
Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans.
3346
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

Donahey, R. C , and Darwin, D. (1988). "Web openings in composite beams with
ribbed slabs." /. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114(3), 518-534.
Donoghue, C. M. (1982). "Composite beams with web openings: design." /. Struct.
Div., ASCE, 108(12), 2652-2667.
Frost, R. W., and Leffler, R. E. (1971). "Fatigue tests of beams with rectangular
web holes." /. Struct. Div., ASCE, 97(2), 509-527.

Granade, C. J. (1968). "An investigation of composite beams having large rectan-
gular openings in their webs," M.S. thesis, University of Alabama, University,
Alabama.
Kussman, R. L., and Cooper, P. B. (1976). "Design example for beams with web
openings." AISC Engrg. J., 13(2), 48-56.
Load and resistance factor design manual of steel construction. (1986a). 1st Ed.,
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, 111.
Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings. (1986b).
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, 111.
Lucas, W. K., and Darwin, D. (1990). "Steel and composite beams with web open-
ings." SM Report No. 23, Univ. of Kansas Ctr. for Res., Univ. of Kansas, Law-
rence, Kans.
Lupien, R., and Redwood, R. G. (1978). "Steel beams with web openings reinforced
on one side." Can. J. Civ. Engrg., 5(4), 451-461.
"Rectangular, concentric and eccentric unreinforced web penetrations in steel beams—
a design aid." (1981). ADUSS27-7108-01, U.S. Steel Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa.
"Rectangular, concentric and eccentric reinforced web penetrations in steel beams—
a design aid." (1986). Rev. Ed., ADUSS27-8482-02, U.S. Steel Corp., Pittsburgh,
Pa.
Redwood, R. G. (1968). "Plastic behavior and design of beams with web openings."
Proc, 1st Canadian Struct. Engrg. Conf, Canadian Steel Industry Construction
Council, 127-138.
Redwood, R. G. (1969). "The strength of steel beams with unreinforced web holes."
Civ. Engrg. and Public Works Review, London, England, 64(755), 559-562.
Redwood, R. G. (1971). "Simplified plastic analysis for reinforced web holes." AISC
Engrg. /.,8(3), 128-131.
Redwood, R. G. (1973). Design of beams with web holes. Canadian Steel Industrial
Construction Council, Don Mills, Ontario, Canada.
Redwood, R. G. (1983). "Design of I-beams with web perforations." Beams and
beam columns: stability and strength, R. Narayanan, ed., Applied Science Publ.,
New York, N.Y., 95-133.
Redwood, R. G., Baranda, H., and Daly, M. J. (1978). "Tests of thin-webbed beams
with unreinforced holes." /. Struct. Div., ASCE, 104(3), 577-595.
Redwood, R. G., and McCutcheon, J. O. (1968). "Beam tests with unreinforced
web openings." /. Struct. Div., ASCE, 94(1), 1-17.
Redwood, R. G., and Poumbouras, G. (1983). "Tests of composite beams with web
holes." Can. J. Civ. Engrg., 10(4), 713-721.
Redwood, R. G., and Poumbouras, G. (1984). "Analysis of composite beams with
web openings." /. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 110(9), 1949-1958.
Redwood, R. G., and Shrivastava, S. C. (1980). "Design recommendations for steel
beams with web holes." Can. J. Civ. Engrg., 7(4), 642-650.
Redwood, R. G., and Uenoya, M. (1979). "Critical loads for webs with holes." J.
Struct. Div., ASCE, 105(10), 2053-2076.
Redwood, R. G., and Wong, P. K. (1982). "Web holes in composite beams with
steel deck." Proc, 8th Can. Struct. Engrg. Conf, Canadian Steel Construction
Council, Willowdale, Ontario, Canada.
"Structural investigation of a typical floor beam at the 200 West Adams Building,
Chicago, Illinois." (1984). WJE No. 840795, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates,
Inc., Northbrook, 111.
Subcommittee on Beams with Web Openings of the Task Committee on Flexure
Members of the Structural Division. (1971). "Suggested design guides for beams
with web holes." /. Struct. Div., ASCE, 97(11), 2707-2728.
Subcommittee on Beams with Web Openings of the Task Committee on Flexure
3347
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

Members of the Structural Division. (1973). "Closure to 'Suggested design guides
for beams with web holes."' J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 99(6), 1312-1315.
Wang, T.-M., Snell, R. R., and Cooper, P. B. (1975). "Strength of beams with
eccentric reinforced holes."/. Struct. Div., ASCE, 101(9), 1783-1799.
APPENDIX IV. GLOSSARY
The following terms apply to members with web openings.

bottom tee is the region of a beam below an opening.
high moment end is the edge of an opening subjected to the greater primary
bending moment. The secondary and primary bending moments act in
the same direction.
low moment end is the edge of an opening subjected to the lower primary
bending moment. The secondary and primary bending moments act in
opposite directions.
opening index, p0, is the parameter used to limit opening size and aspect
ratio.
primary bending moment is the bending moment at any point in a beam
caused by external loading.
reinforcement is the longitudinal steel bars welded to the web above and
below an opening to increase section capacity.
secondary bending moment is the bending moment within a tee that is
induced by the shear carried by the tee.
tee is the region of a beam above or below an opening.
top tee is the region of a beam above an opening.
unperforated member is the section without an opening. Refers to properties
of the member at the position of the opening.
APPENDIX V. NOTATION
The notation listed here includes only those symbols used in the Com-
mentary that are not defined in the Nomenclature section of the Specification.
The section number in parentheses after the definition of a symbol refers to
the section in this Commentary where the symbol is first defined.
As = cross-sectional area of steel in unperforated member (3.2);

Am = net area of steel section with opening and reinforcement (3.2);
a = depth of concrete compression block (3.2);
e = eccentricity of opening; distance between the center line of the steel
section and the center line of the opening; for noncomposite sec-
tions—always positive; for composite sections—positive when the
center line of the opening is above the center line of the steel section
. (3.2);
Fy = reduced axial yield strength of steel (3.3);
Lb = unbraced length of compression flange (4.4);
M„ = nominal bending capacity (3.1);
Mp = plastic bending capacity of an unperforated noncomposite beam
(3.2);
Mpc = plastic bending capacity of an unperforated composite beam (3.2);
Pc = axial force in concrete for a section under pure bending (3.2);
Rwr = required strength of a weld (4.12);
7" = maximum tensile force in net steel section (3.2);
3348
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

V„ = nominal shear capacity (3.1);
x = distance from top of flange to plastic neutral axis in flange or web
of a composite beam (3.2);
Z = plastic section modulus (3.2);
AAS = net reduction in area of steel section due to presence of an opening
and reinforcement = h0tw - 2Ar (3.2); and

T = average shear stress (3.3).
3349
J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

By The ASCE Task Committee On Design Criteria For Composite Structures in Steel and Concrete ABSTRACT: This Commentary Complements The "Proposed Specification For Struc

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

By The ASCE Task Committee On Design Criteria For Composite Structures in Steel and Concrete ABSTRACT: This Commentary Complements The "Proposed Specification For Struc

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

COMMENTARY ON PROPOSED SPECIFICATION FOR

STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAMS WITH W E B OPENINGS

By the ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures

ABSTRACT: This commentary complements the "Proposed Specification for Struc-

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

3.0 DESIGN PROCEDURE

<$>0M„ = $0Vn <$>oMm

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

Fig. 1 presents stress diagrams for noncomposite sections in pure bending.

where Mp = plastic bending moment of unperforated section = FyZ;

FIG. 1. Noncomposite Sections in Pure Bending: (a) Unreinforced Opening; (b)

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

Fy = yield strength of steel.

Mm = Mp- Fy K (-f + Ke - e2 ) + Arh0 sMp (4)

In the development of Commentary Eq. (4), the reinforcement is assumed

Mm = MP- FyAAs I ^ + e - ^j < Mp (5)

where AAS = hjw - 1Ar.

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

0.85 fe (a) 0.85/;.

4 = total thickness of concrete slab;

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

The maximum moment capacity, Mm, depends on which of the inequalities

&Ase - (bf - Qtj twx2

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

M =, . M(A,„ +F AA,e\ Mpc

Mm = FyAm - + FyAAse + Pc L - ^J < Mpc (12)

where ts = thickness of slab; and

3.3 Maximum Nominal Shear Capacity

3.3. a General Equations

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

FIG. 3. Axial Stress Distributions for Opening at Maximum Shear: Fy = Reduced

FIG. 4. Simplified Axial Stress Distributions for Opening at Maximum Shear; Fy

and simplifying the stress distributions illustrated in Fig. 3 to those shown

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

3.3.b Top Tee in Composite Beams

4.0 DESIGN CRITERIA

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

4.2 Web Buckling

4.3 Buckling of Tee-Shaped Compression Zone

4.4 Lateral Buckling

"l - (Vi —MiT <! (14)

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

4.6 Tee Proportions

4.7 Corner Radii

4.8 Concentrated Loads

4.9 Placement of Opening

4.10 Spacing Between Openings

4.11 Circular Openings

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

ment is adjacent to the opening. Treating the reinforcement as if it were

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

4.13 Composite Members

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

APPENDIX I. DESIGN EXAMPLE

n r-\ r\ r\ r\ r\ cxjziu^xjzi^xj^Li, \ n r\ r\ r\j-\

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

E. Check the Capacity Using Fy = 50 ksi

FIG. 6. Unreinforced Opening Details

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

" - ? „ + ^ = 2 + H-" 8 < 6 » OK '

"- -T' {h ^u^) + '- ('• -1

J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:3325-3348.

Vp, = Fytws,lV?> = 50(0.275)(2.94)/V3 = 23.3 kips